1877 Indian Cent, Strong "N" at Heritage

tjkillian

I was browsing the Heritage Signature sale next month and saw this 1877 Indian Cent in MS-64RED. It clearly has a strong "N". I thought that 1877's only had a strong "N" in proofs.

http://www.heritagecoin.com/common/auctions/viewlot.asp?s=318&l=5155&SID=

Tom

Coulport

All the 1877 Indians I've seen have the weak N.
It has been my understanding that all were this way.
However, I believe that Bob Campbell stated that a few business strikes are known with a strong N.

And you are right. Proofs have a bold N.

So - - - - - MAYBE the coin in question is OK. Or not.

MrEureka

The coin looks 100% real. You can see a bit of the "weakness" if you look close. (Actually, it's not a weakness in strike, it's the way the letters were unevenly impressed into the die.) BTW, look at how rounded the digits of the date are. It's another characteristic of the date, although I don't know if all 77's are like that.

Cam40

Must be one of those `as good as the original` replicas.



tongue-in-cheek ofcourse...........Perhaps it is early die state and the die is still yet undamaged. How many die pairs were there anyway.Did I hear once that it was only one?

shylock

Tom -- Very fully struck but you can still see some weakness compared to the N in CENTS. I added a couple pages to my site this weekend about the 4 reverse IH hubs, here's a plate of N close-ups:



The 1877 you linked is certainly more defined than the shallow N in my pic. But not full enough to be the bold N, the only other hub in existence at that time.

shylock

PS: It's tough to see them clearly in the Heritage pic, but the serifs of the shallow & bold N's are different. The Heritage coin appears to have the shallow N style serifs as well as the thinner left verticle stroke.

dorkkarl

the central weakness common to the 1877's is NOT a definitive. the coin depicted is real - & exceptional for that grade

K S

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Dorkkarl

Have you seen the coin? Do you know the consignor?

Paul,
Nice photos as usual.Have you ever seen a 77 that is not a weak N as a ms coin?

Stewart

shylock

Stewart - No, have you? I think we get used to seeing 1877 shallow N's that are almost flush with the fields at the bottom so an example like this Heritage coin makes you look twice. The Gorrell 1877 from the recent FUN sale was also very strong, and closer to what shallow Ns on earlier dates look like:

dorkkarl

hey stewartblaynumismatics, no to both questions. i'm going 100% by the digi-pic.

however, i have seen a few (maybe only a handful?) genuine 1877's that do NOT have the general reverse weakness we're all used to.

i'm claiming it's an exceptional coin because the strengh of the reverse indicates a very early die-state. however, i would not bid on the coin regardless of what pcgs or heritage says about it.

thankfully though, i WILL be seeing the coin in person

K S

FinallyHere

I wanted to chime in here since I in fact know the consignor and I know very much about this set. In fact, I sold this 1877 MS64RD that is now the topic of discussion. The coin is simply superb and far and away nicer than many of the MS65 Red pieces I have seen over the last few years. It is 100% business strike and should be of interest to any looking for a nice ORIGINAL 1877 in Mint State regardless of the grade since this coin again is much nicer than many MS65 Red pieces I've seen.

This set, while maybe not having the ultimate grades, is overall very cherry. I did not sell most of the coins, just a few so I have no real vested interest here other than to share that I have seen the coins...all of them...and there are some really great pieces in this set.

Mike Printz

My Site

Lakesammman

Shylock:

Great pics. Shallow, weak, strong and deep are all relative aren't they?? The serifs are the tip off, as you mentioned. It's interesting to see such a late die state obverse with what may be a early die state reverse, relatively free of clash marks. Should see some spirited bidding.

Stewart:

If you sell me yours, you'll have the cash to persue this one....

dorkkarl

i predict, no, i GUARANTEE there will be spirited bidding on this particular coin

K S

IrishMike

My first reaction when I saw the coin was "wow" only a 64. There is too much disparity in the 64 grade for IHC's. I know that some of you disagree strongly with that assertion, but I constantly see coins that are 64's that must be 65's compared to the vast majority of 64's I see. Are graders scared of 65's and higher now?

billiardmaster

I have owned several 1877 ihc from a very old collection. All had the strong N. This was maybe 25 years ago. As far as I know, all
were genuine. Have never noticed any other strong N 1877 cents.
Rusty

shylock

I'd be curious to see some of the bold N 1877s mentioned here. Shallow N's can have a strong look to them, especially on 1862 thru 1869 Indian cents where they were the only reverse used. A few 1871 & 72s have them too. Here's a shallow N 1872 that could easily be mistaken as bold compared to your typical 1877. I think I learned from Lakesammman the trick of attributing these by their serifs instead of trying to judge their "shallowness". The upper left serif in particular is obviously longer on shallow Ns (see the comparison plate in my 1st post) and takes the guesswork out of spotting them in images.

joejeweler

Hi Mike.......sometimes seems that way for sure! My example PCGS MS64RB looks like a 65 at least ( and lays claims to a 66 IMHO!). It's in my NGC registry link below, though my photo's seem to add "phantom" marks which aren't on the coin.

I won't quible over the RB designation as there are highlights of Rose on the reverse and Olive on the obverse. But it's a good strike with nary a mark on it! I payed better than 64 money for it.......but i won't quible with that either 'cause i wouldn't take 65 money for it now if offered!

I've given up too many coins over the years i wish i had back. This is one they may bury me with........
Joe T



<< <i>My first reaction when I saw the coin was "wow" only a 64. There is too much disparity in the 64 grade for IHC's. I know that some of you disagree strongly with that assertion, but I constantly see coins that are 64's that must be 65's compared to the vast majority of 64's I see. Are graders scared of 65's and higher now? >>